Originally posted by Nai[b]@Zenwolf
Nope, they weren't.
If those things were warhead, we would have seen visible explosion on their impacts. Since that didn't happen, those were energy weapons. [/B]
They didn't appear to be lasers and the novel says they are proton torpedos.
Plus you do see small explosions when they hit and then a bigger one before the dome explosions.
Originally posted by Nai
[B]
Yeah. Just another ship using the same technology on a smaller scale.
The mere fact you think that an A Wing weapons are more powerful then the vengeance is enough for me to take the win here based on complete buffoonery from you.
Congrats, I found the only person more stupid then LOM on the board.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The mere fact you think that an A Wing weapons are more powerful then the vengeance is enough for me to take the win here based on complete buffoonery from you.
Uh. Reductio ad absurdum. *slow clapping*
Congrats, I found the only person more stupid then LOM on the board.
So you have a mirror at home. Interesting. 👆
So.... this was a thing that happened even in here.... Wow.
The Star Destroyer is just too much for almost any individual Federation ship, yes, even the USS Vengeance.
You'd need something like the USS Aeon or USS Relativity to actually pull an individual win in a one on one confrontation, barring things like environmental shenanigans like explosive nebulae, singularity f**kery, or other external factors, and that is only because those two ships are capable of temporal time travel.
The fact remains, as Nai has stated, no 23rd or 24th century federation ships have the necessary level of combat firepower needed to penetrate a hypermatter reactor powered shield and the hull armor before they get fragged by MTLs or HTLs, not to mention the other armaments even an ISD MKI usually carries.
Sorry, the firepower disparity is too great. Before the Vengeance can pull off some treknobabbly "i win" situation, it's going to get blasted to giblets.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
So.... this was a thing that happened even in here.... Wow.
The Star Destroyer is just too much for almost any individual Federation ship, yes, even the USS Vengeance.You'd need something like the USS Aeon or USS Relativity to actually pull an individual win in a one on one confrontation, barring things like environmental shenanigans like explosive nebulae, singularity f**kery, or other external factors, and that is only because those two ships are capable of temporal time travel.
The fact remains, as Nai has stated, no 23rd or 24th century federation ships have the necessary level of combat firepower needed to penetrate a hypermatter reactor powered shield and the hull armor before they get fragged by MTLs or HTLs, not to mention the other armaments even an ISD MKI usually carries.
Sorry, the firepower disparity is too great. Before the Vengeance can pull off some treknobabbly "i win" situation, it's going to get blasted to giblets.
Well it's actually a miniaturized sun reactor.
So you call me a moron yet admitted you were wrong to me. You cowered and admitted your Chewbecca's power cell theory was conceived when ignorance ****ed stupidity.
Conclusion: we don't ****ing know so quit basing your case off something you can't prove. It's horrendous debating to debate based off points you can't prove. You yourself gave four possible options so you concede the point. False. Nothing you have stated proves the Star Wars ships are more powerful than the Trek ones especially the Vengeance which was created for combat. Increased size, speed, and weaponry able to be piloted by one friggin person.
We see the same gun used so please prove it is a different gun. So now you'll try speculating on distant blip explosions and ignore how weak the Star Wars ships guns are. Weak as ****. Khan's Boolean gun is more powerful than the MF guns. Weak.
This is the star destroyer so what relevance does rots have with regards to this thread. Eu isn't default. Yw.
Cower before me in the shame of your huge power cell theory error.
Based off the weak gunfire that destroyer the deflector shields and the superior power of the vengeance's guns based off the time it fired on the enterprise. The deflector shields are much smaller and were completely destroyed by a few shots. Are you an idiot ? Rhetorical.
I am assuming it has to hit someone at a certain spot to kill them. It doesn't pack the destructive power of the Boolean gun because Trek weapons are flat out more impressive. Brings down Klingon patrol ships whereas chewies gun failed to bring down robed beings.
Lies.
False. I am going by the consistent Star Wars showings and handguns don't do that, dummy. Khan's Boolean gun is consistently more powerful than the weak Star Wars blasters.
I don't care how much time you think happened off screen or how much damage you believe the executor took. We see it on screen what firepower was required to take out the deflector shields. Period. Quit speculating and debate based off what we see. Not saying the shields can't take some damage but the deflector shields can be easily destroyed based off evidence. They focused on the ship but we see which two ships made critical hits. Just like we see the insignicant damage done to the death start prior to Luke's game winning shot. A filmmaker doesn't have to show us every bit of the battle just the relevant information which was shown.
So a personal attack to avoid the significant and relevant damage was all shown on screen. Condolences to your theories.
Yes, just as a star fighter can take out the Death Star provided it attacks and hits key points. Ignore it all you want but you can't change the facts. False. We see the deflector shields destroyed which bring down the shields. We see it on screen so quit lying.
We have seen both destroyed so please quit avoiding the evidence.
In Star Trek the superior ships are just above the weaker ones outside a plot device after they have to convince the superior ship to stop firing. In star wars one smaller shitty ship can avoid many imperial ships all attacking one target. Laughable.
We do not know the extent of the damage and you're just inserting an unknown variable herr and act like you've proven it. You haven't. Baseless claim.
Narada was a badass super ship unlike the filth from the Star Wars universe. Star destroyers are a joke and despite many of them they don't really impress. The Narada was decimating ships left and right but the destroyers haven't been portrayed anywhere near to this manner. Sorry.
False. We see that isn't the case but you'll just lie. Points to the star destroyer firing on the MF. Weak. In trek shit gets ****ed uo with the shields on when superior ships bring forth the pain. Your lies and theories get boring.
We don't see it on screen attack with anywhere near the power of this hyperbolic line which isn't proof. The lengths you will go to try to make some silly claim you can't prove.
So you can't screen cap because you lied. Despicable.
Added firepower to help maneuver through the asteroid field.
Then why don't you accept ? If I'm no challenge why even post all these rebuttals. You claim I no challenge so get an easy victory. What are you so afraid of ? Accept now and prove you have a spine or continue to be a quadriplegic poster.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial😂
The mere fact you think that an A Wing weapons are more powerful then the vengeance is enough for me to take the win here based on complete buffoonery from you.Congrats, I found the only person more stupid then LOM on the board.
He is a clown who is afraid of a judged debate against me.
Originally posted by quanchi112
So you call me a moron yet admitted you were wrong to me. You cowered and admitted your Chewbecca's power cell theory was conceived when ignorance ****ed stupidity.
Yeah. What a shame. I didn't remember a scene from a science-fiction movie perfectly. You know: My life doesn't depend on that or being right on the internet every time. Yours does and still you suck at it. 😉
Conclusion: we don't ****ing know so quit basing your case off something you can't prove. It's horrendous debating to debate based off points you can't prove. You yourself gave four possible options so you concede the point. False. Nothing you have stated proves the Star Wars ships are more powerful than the Trek ones especially the Vengeance which was created for combat. Increased size, speed, and weaponry able to be piloted by one friggin person.
Excuse me, Sir.
This is a speculative set up. Nobody here can prove anything. We can just speculate based on the evidence that is available in the movies. What we see in Star Wars are rather huge explosions created by ship weapons, regardless of the ships being regular starfighters or giant battleships or the Death Star.
The point is that larger explosions imply a larger amount of energy being released or - in terms of this debate - more firepower being used. And the last two sentences in that particular paragraph are outright hilarious, given you're arguing against a Star Wars ship aptly named Star Destroyer. Which represents the culmination of conventional warfare of an at least 25,000 year lasting pangalactic civilization.
We see the same gun used so please prove it is a different gun. So now you'll try speculating on distant blip explosions and ignore how weak the Star Wars ships guns are. Weak as ****. Khan's Boolean gun is more powerful than the MF guns. Weak.
Lmao.
So, somehow, you managed to confuse the gun seen here...
...with the ships main weapon turrets used by Luke and Han in ANH and Finn in TFA?
And you call me out on not remembering something from a movie correctly? 😂
This is the star destroyer so what relevance does rots have with regards to this thread. Eu isn't default. Yw.
The Venator-class ships are the weaker predecessor models to the Star Destroyers. Thus it is a logical assumption, that the Star Destroyer could at least replicate everything they do on screen in terms of shielding / armor and firepower.
And the "defeault" for this forum is canon EU, quanchi. That includes "Star Wars: Rebels", "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" and any other source releast post April 25, 2014, unless marked as "Legends".
Cower before me in the shame of your huge power cell theory error.
Yeah.
How about you producing an alternative hypothesis for the Bowcaster not killing Kylo an tossing him through the air, which it does with every other target it his?
Based off the weak gunfire that destroyer the deflector shields and the superior power of the vengeance's guns based off the time it fired on the enterprise. The deflector shields are much smaller and were completely destroyed by a few shots. Are you an idiot ? Rhetorical.
You're still ignoring the context.
The shield generators would usually be protected by the shields. So you need to take the shields out to take them down. That took a rather long space battle an the entire rebel fleet focussing fire on the Executor. We just don't see shields going down in Star Wars within seconds (like in Star Trek) because their shields are much more powerful. D'uh.
And you're still arguing in circles. Your "proof" for supposely weak SW shields is the supposed weakness of SW weapons, for which your argument is the supposely weak shields. Troll logic. 🙄
I am assuming it has to hit someone at a certain spot to kill them. It doesn't pack the destructive power of the Boolean gun because Trek weapons are flat out more impressive. Brings down Klingon patrol ships whereas chewies gun failed to bring down robed beings.
So you are making assumptions directly contradicted by visual evidence? 👆
Apparently "the ground in front of people" is a good spot to hit "them" in order to kill them with a nice explosion that tosses two troopers around like ragdolls. 😂
I don't care how much time you think happened off screen or how much damage you believe the executor took. We see it on screen what firepower was required to take out the deflector shields. Period. Quit speculating and debate based off what we see. Not saying the shields can't take some damage but the deflector shields can be easily destroyed based off evidence. They focused on the ship but we see which two ships made critical hits. Just like we see the insignicant damage done to the death start prior to Luke's game winning shot. A filmmaker doesn't have to show us every bit of the battle just the relevant information which was shown.
It's not time I "think" happened, but even the time that actually did happen in the movie makes it a rather long space battle. And the A-Wings don't take out the shield - they take out the shield generator after the shields that were protecting it were already taking out because otherwise - d'uh - we would have seen explosions against the shielding.
Yes, just as a star fighter can take out the Death Star provided it attacks and hits key points. Ignore it all you want but you can't change the facts. False. We see the deflector shields destroyed which bring down the shields. We see it on screen so quit lying.
Okay. The defeclector shields can be destroyed by starfighters, the Vengeance is not a starfighter. It can't destroy the deflector shields. Troll logic arguing with trolls. Fun.
We have seen both destroyed so please quit avoiding the evidence.
Quit avoiding the context.
In Star Trek the superior ships are just above the weaker ones outside a plot device after they have to convince the superior ship to stop firing. In star wars one smaller shitty ship can avoid many imperial ships all attacking one target. Laughable.
This would matter, if the Vengeance was "small". It will be after the battle, when just tiny remains of space dust will remain of it after eating a broadside from the Star Destroyer.
We do not know the extent of the damage and you're just inserting an unknown variable herr and act like you've proven it. You haven't. Baseless claim.
I have already understood that math isn't your strongest suit, but this is laughable. So: Despite knowning that the ship has taken damage by participating in a space-battle, we are going to ignore that, because we don't know how much damage exactly it took. In quanchis world "1+x" is still "1". 🙄
Narada was a badass super ship unlike the filth from the Star Wars universe. Star destroyers are a joke and despite many of them they don't really impress. The Narada was decimating ships left and right but the destroyers haven't been portrayed anywhere near to this manner. Sorry.
Again: Context. The Imperial Star Destroyers weren't used to fight ships that were by far inferior to them. We have just one of those here that is used to fight a far inferior ship here. 😉
False. We see that isn't the case but you'll just lie. Points to the star destroyer firing on the MF. Weak. In trek shit gets ****ed uo with the shields on when superior ships bring forth the pain. Your lies and theories get boring.
You are still arguing in circles, quanchimon.
The Star Destroyer light weapons vaporize asteroids the size of the Millenium Falcon. Fact. That the Falcon isn't destroyed by them is just because of shields and armor. Fact. So we are still dealing with weapons that show higher destructive abilities than Trek weapons on screen and with shields capable of dealing with that even on small vessels like the MF. This is why the Vengeance doesn't have a chance agains the firepower and shields / armor of a Star Destroyer.
We don't see it on screen attack with anywhere near the power of this hyperbolic line which isn't proof. The lengths you will go to try to make some silly claim you can't prove.
We do see smaller asteroids hitting the Falcon causing less effect than the bigger asteroids hitting the screen. Which I can't capture, because Han and Leia are just saying they were being hit by asteroids. If you can't follow the narrative of a story, don't attempt to argue about it.
Added firepower to help maneuver through the asteroid field.
LMAO.
So now, over a sudden, a TIE-Fighter adds firepower that is of significant help when trying to get through an asteroid field? Thanks for making that concession. Star Wars weapons > Star Trek weapons, when even a TIE-Fighters fire power is "significant help" for that task. 👆
Then why don't you accept ? If I'm no challenge why even post all these rebuttals. You claim I no challenge so get an easy victory. What are you so afraid of ? Accept now and prove you have a spine or continue to be a quadriplegic poster.
Because it would be like stealing candy from a baby. And I fear for (the sad remains of) your mental health when independent judges confirm your inferiority. Not that the outcome against the Ellimist will be any different.
The problem isn't whether you remembered the scene but the notion you went on to make an argument without watching the scene in question. So you're either lazy or just arrogant as to propose some jackass theory without even remembering the scene in the first place. I'm guessing a little of both columns but I'm open to hearing your excuse as to why you made such a giant mistake.
It is blatantly false we can't prove anything. How these ships fare against each other in itself is speculative but what these ships did in their own movies is not. We also see decent explosions when chewies crosscaster is used but that doesn't mean it packs more power. Take for instance the visceral damage that occurs when the Boolean guns hits a target in comparison to the crosscaster. It's obvious which one is more powerful.
Now back two the topic at hand. An explosion isn't indicative of more power because let's face it we see various explosions in Star Wars which means hitting key points not that the blasts are a lot more powerful.
This last line of 25,000 years of pangalactic civilization is ridiculous. Star Wars progresses very, very slowly. We have been over this too many times. What ships has any star destroyer decimated on screen which impressed you ? Please feel free to name a time and the film, please.
Those are still guns used on that ship. So we have a slightly stronger main turret weapon but dear lord at the weak guns used on the wintery Stormtroopers. Can you say, pa--thetic.
They aren't the same ships so it is another example of abc logic. You have three films to use from but you'd rather use an abc comparison from the rots film because you known damn well these star destroyers are overrated pieces of huge horseshit.
It's just rather pathetic you cannot stick to movie references against the USS Vengeance which appears in one Trek film. You really are desperate as to lure attention away from the awful portrayal of the star destroyers and the glaring weakness you have failed to rebut. It utterly lacks maneuverability. Combat wise it barely can avoid another star destroyer in close proximity and despite the tie fighters help managed to completely drop the ball with bringing in the MF.
Oh my word. So now you want an explanation as to why the crosscaster didn't kill Kylo. How about it didn't hit any major organs and didn't kill him. We see light sabers kill but despite Finn and Ren's visceral damage sustained on losing ends against a saber they both managed to live on as well.
The crosscaster didn't toss multiple Stormtroopers in the next scene after Chewie hit Kylo as well. Watch that damn scene you Star Wars douchebag.
Now I am looking at the scene at face value. You're not. You're making up excuses much in the same vein you did when you claimed Chewie didn't keep firing on Kylo. We see the shield generators destroyed very easily in Star Wars via a few shots. We also see the MF take punishment and knew it was not going to take much more from the star destroyer before it evaded any further damage. In trek superior ships decimate weaker ships but that isn't the case in Wars ala MF and the star destroyer.
I referenced three examples. 1) executor shield generator easily destroyed on screen. Your rebuttal well it took considerable damage off screen from ehich I cannot prove.
2) shields destroyed you claimed prevented toxic air from entering.
😂
3) executor failing to decimate the shields from a vastly inferior ship in ESB.
We do not know they were killed and the visceral damage isn't as powerful as the Boolean gun which downed ships, and left bodies in stumps. Leaving a body in stumps is more powerful than sending one off the ground in an explosion you troll.
The shield generator is vital and easily destroyed. That's the point. You are arguing off of claims you cannot prove this we go by what we see not what you claim. So simple even a Nai man can do it.
Star fighters are weaker than the Vengeance thus the vengeance can destroy destroyers. Right back at ya.
Quit making up Nai context to every scene.
So you avoid the point. Both superior ships are bigger and pack more powerful weaponry the difference is in Trek the Vengeance is too much for the Enterprise to engage or to flee from. This isn't the case in wars when it comes to the MF and the star destroyers.
You have not proven the variables so continents postulate your unproven theories.
So you believe the rebels ships weren't inferior to the star destroyers. It's this kind of dishonest debating which has you pegged as the troll you're known to be. Tempest warned me of your kind years ago and I swore I'd execute you for your crimes. Vengeance is by far the superior ship here compared to the laughably slow and gigantic target known as a star destroyer.
You'd have to prove the asteroids the star destroyer destroyed are comparable to the USS vengeance which has shielding. Does the asteroid have shielding ? For **** sake make a relevant point I grow tired of your troll comparisons. I agree the MF has shields which is the point I made is that shields are highly effective against the destroyers weapons unlike the asteroids. Way to destroy your own point.
You said you'd prove when and how many times they were hit. You can't this you concede. Unknown variables doesn't constitute as ironclad evidence.
I am saying the tie fighter adds more guns not advanced firepower.
More excuse making from the master. Face it you are gutless and won't allow any judges the authority to judge the debate as you know they'd sniff through your Star Wars bias. Whatever the case you were too scared to face me in an official debate you despicable coward.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Nai has conceded the thread as I predicted. I bet he still wets the bed.
Pardon me.
While I understand, that the concept is entirely foreign to you, some people here have "work" to attent which is, next foreign concept for you, more important than KMC.
Originally posted by quanchi112
The problem isn't whether you remembered the scene but the notion you went on to make an argument without watching the scene in question. So you're either lazy or just arrogant as to propose some jackass theory without even remembering the scene in the first place. I'm guessing a little of both columns but I'm open to hearing your excuse as to why you made such a giant mistake.
I'm very sorry that debating with you isn't serious business for me, but just something I do to kill time when I have time to kill. And yes. It is not even important enough for me to go and check a source here, because nobody is buying your craptastic views anyway. I'd do that for people who deserve at least a modicum of respect. You don't. And since I'm fed up with your nonsense, I will now switch to a more formal debating style. Watch and learn:
It is blatantly false we can't prove anything. How these ships fare against each other in itself is speculative but what these ships did in their own movies is not. We also see decent explosions when chewies crosscaster is used but that doesn't mean it packs more power. Take for instance the visceral damage that occurs when the Boolean guns hits a target in comparison to the crosscaster. It's obvious which one is more powerful.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam: Since you fail to consider everything implied for Star Wars, you can't accurately judge the things that Star Wars ships are doing to each other in their respective movies. You outright ignore instances that I've presented that show what they do to eachother in the respective movies. Neither of that serves as counter to my argument.
The entire boolean gun story is a red herring (ignoratio elenchi), because it has nothing to do with the topic of this particular thread. And it's the next argumentum ad ignorantiam as well, because your mental faculties are incapable of computing easy concepts, e.g. the difference between energy being delivered by a "bolt" and that being delivered with a sustained energy beam (Boolean gun) as well as the differences of the targets those weapons were aimed at. This also doesn't serves as counter for my argument.
First paragraph count: three logical fallacies, not a single coherent argument formed. 3 - 0.
Now back two the topic at hand. An explosion isn't indicative of more power because let's face it we see various explosions in Star Wars which means hitting key points not that the blasts are a lot more powerful.
The next argumentum ad ignorantiam: You don't want to consider any of the explosions seen, which are all more impressive than stuff happening in Star Trek, because you fail to see their significance. You're also inable or unwilling to apply basical physical concepts and outright logical ideas here. Furthermore I've linked a visual where two ships exchange broadsides. According to your theory, they are hitting "key points" with pretty much every single shot. 🙄 Nothing of that serves as counter to my argument.
Second paragraph added to the fallacy / argument count: 4 - 0.
This last line of 25,000 years of pangalactic civilization is ridiculous. Star Wars progresses very, very slowly. We have been over this too many times. What ships has any star destroyer decimated on screen which impressed you ? Please feel free to name a time and the film, please.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam: Again your imagination fails to see that they don't just "down" other Star Wars ships, because those ships are equiped with shielding capable of resisting that kind of firepower. Which is pretty obvious from the instance in which we see them hit unshielded objects. You ignore both facts entirely and just keep repeating the same nonsense. Also a petitio principii (begging the question) given that you are taking your assumptions as facts in order to prove them (weakness of firepower / shields in Star Wars). And once again: Nothing here does counter any of my points.
6 - 0.
Those are still guns used on that ship. So we have a slightly stronger main turret weapon but dear lord at the weak guns used on the wintery Stormtroopers. Can you say, pa--thetic.
Given your drama-queenesque reaction to my memory slip regarding one particular scene, one should assume that you're slashing your wrists open over this cringeworthy mistake of yours right now. And the next red herrding because the Millenium Falcon's weapons are not even remotely compable to that of a Star Destroyer. Also the next argumentum ad ignoratiam, because failing to imagine that if the slightly bigger guns on the MF have more firepower than the small gun used against the Stormtroopers, the much bigger guns on the Star Destroyer are having much more firepower.
Fallacy / Argument score: 8 - 0.
They aren't the same ships so it is another example of abc logic. You have three films to use from but you'd rather use an abc comparison from the rots film because you known damn well these star destroyers are overrated pieces of huge horseshit.
They are advanced developments of that very same ship design. This is like saying that the Vengeance can't perform a shielding or firepower feats from the Enterprise, because it's not the same ship, when we know that it is much more powerful in both fields. Another argumentium ad ingorantiam, failing to compute this. 9 - 0.
It's just rather pathetic you cannot stick to movie references against the USS Vengeance which appears in one Trek film. You really are desperate as to lure attention away from the awful portrayal of the star destroyers and the glaring weakness you have failed to rebut. It utterly lacks maneuverability. Combat wise it barely can avoid another star destroyer in close proximity and despite the tie fighters help managed to completely drop the ball with bringing in the MF.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam #1: Ignoring the presented movie scenes, because of failing to see their relevance.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam #2: Ignoring the CW scenes, despite them being canon and per default in on every debate on this forum.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam #3: Failing to imagine anything the Star Destroyers could do.
Red Herring / ignoratio elenchi: Bringing up its maneuverability, which is a complete non-issue here.
None of that serves as counter to any of my arguments.
Adding four logical fallacies and zero arguments from this paragraph to your statistics: 13 - 0.
Oh my word. So now you want an explanation as to why the crosscaster didn't kill Kylo. How about it didn't hit any major organs and didn't kill him. We see light sabers kill but despite Finn and Ren's visceral damage sustained on losing ends against a saber they both managed to live on as well.The crosscaster didn't toss multiple Stormtroopers in the next scene after Chewie hit Kylo as well. Watch that damn scene you Star Wars douchebag.
Now I am looking at the scene at face value. You're not. You're making up excuses much in the same vein you did when you claimed Chewie didn't keep firing on Kylo.
This entire talk about the handheld weapons is a red herring.
Ignoring the obvious fact that Chewie's weapon can produce shots with much greater effects by just pointing out that it doesn't always do: Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
15 - 0.
We see the shield generators destroyed very easily in Star Wars via a few shots. We also see the MF take punishment and knew it was not going to take much more from the star destroyer before it evaded any further damage. In trek superior ships decimate weaker ships but that isn't
the case in Wars ala MF and the star destroyer.
And here we have outright stupidity. Aside from still ignoring context from the shield generator scene (argumentum ad ignorantiam), despite having it pointed out to you multiple times, you produced the following gem in terms of "logic":
1)
MF takes punishment from weapons that casually vaporize asteroids the size of the Falcon. Somehow, this makes the weapons weak and is no argument for the strengths of the shields / armor of the Falcon.
2)
But then, after some seconds with just a few hits actually hitting the Falcon, the ship is, apparently, on the brink of destruction, which forces Han into an incredibly risky and uncommon manouver. C-3POs commentary on that one and the fact that the MF was on the brink of destruction after being fired on for a rather short amount of time with the light guns of the Star Destroyer lead to the conclusion you wanted: That the weaker ship would have been decimated by the superior one - and far faster than this happens in Star Trek usually.
16-0.
I referenced three examples. 1) executor shield generator easily destroyed on screen. Your rebuttal well it took considerable damage off screen from ehich I cannot prove.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam: Your failure to imagine that a giant ship has taken fire in half an hour of space battle is not any kind of basis to debunk my point on. Especially not, when the commander of the Rebel fleet outright orders the entire Rebel fleet to fire on that very same ship and there is visual evidence for giant explosions on the ships shielding. Because of that, nothing of this serves as counter to my argument.
The count: 17 - 0
2) shields destroyed you claimed prevented toxic air from entering.
😂
And here we have a straw man, because I said they are just there to prevent the air from exiting the ship - which is why the blast doors are closing once they are deactivated. And you're still ignoring the fact, that those shields were not there to protect the ship and don't resemble the shields that do (that have shield generators protected by the shields they project). Still not defeating any of my points.
19-0.
3) executor failing to decimate the shields from a vastly inferior ship in ESB.
Since the Executor doesn't fire a single shot in ESB, I'm now looking forward to the wrist slashing following your second total failure in one single posting. 👆
We do not know they were killed and the visceral damage isn't as powerful as the Boolean gun which downed ships, and left bodies in stumps. Leaving a body in stumps is more powerful than sending one off the ground in an explosion you troll.
Since we already know, that the topic of the thread aren't handheld guns, this is just another red herring. 20 - 0.
The shield generator is vital and easily destroyed. That's the point. You are arguing off of claims you cannot prove this we go by what we see not what you claim. So simple even a Nai man can do it.
Welcome to Quanchi-ignoring-context the upteenth edition.
So it is really easy to take down a Star Destroyer by just destroying its shield generator. Thus why Ackbar is, essentially noticing that entire rebel fleet isn't going to last long against the Star Destroyers should they decide to start firing at them (which they don't do the entire time). And then, why don't the rebels just always just destroy the shield generators, if that is such an easy thing to do? Really. Why focus fire on virtual all other parts of the ship, when you just need to target the supposed "weak spot"? Let us ignore how Star Wars shields work and what they can do, because, hey, who cares about context?
Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Not countering any point I made. 21 - 0.
Star fighters are weaker than the Vengeance thus the vengeance can destroy destroyers. Right back at ya.
Since the Vengeances doesn't have backup from the entire Rebel Fleet focusing fire on the ship it targets, that's not going to happen. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. 22 - 0
Quit making up Nai context to every scene.
It is there, you ignore it. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Also accusing me of not telling the truth, instead of attacking my point, which counts as argumentum ad hominem. Still not making any point. 24 - 0.
So you avoid the point. Both superior ships are bigger and pack more powerful weaponry the difference is in Trek the Vengeance is too much for the Enterprise to engage or to flee from. This isn't the case in wars when it comes to the MF and the star destroyers.
This is why the MF has deflector shields failing and is about to be destroyed after taking it up with a Star Destroyers light guns for about ten seconds? 😂
You have not proven the variables so continents postulate your unproven theories.
Continents? Africa? Australia? Europe? I like to see them "postulate" my "unproven theories". 😂 Next argumentum ad ignorantiam, because a theory / thesis is not wrong because it is yet "unproven". 25-0.
So you believe the rebels ships weren't inferior to the star destroyers.
Now where did I say that? Strawman. Not making a point. 26-0
It's this kind of dishonest debating which has you pegged as the troll you're known to be. Tempest warned me of your kind years ago and I swore I'd execute you for your crimes.
Argumentum ad hominem. Not making a point. 27-0.
Vengeance is by far the superior ship here compared to the laughably slow and gigantic target known as a star destroyer.
Petitio principii, assuming the thing that you want to prove to make an argument. 28-0.
You'd have to prove the asteroids the star destroyer destroyed are comparable to the USS vengeance which has shielding.
Red herring. The destruction of the asteroid is just there to give you an example of the firepower of a Star Destroyer. Which you keep ignoring (argumentum ad ignorantiam). 30-0.
Does the asteroid have shielding ? For **** sake make a relevant point I grow tired of your troll comparisons. I agree the MF has shields which is the point I made is that shields are highly effective against the destroyers weapons unlike the asteroids. Way to destroy your own point.
Red herring. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. 32-0.
You said you'd prove when and how many times they were hit. You can't this you concede. Unknown variables doesn't constitute as ironclad evidence.
Argumentium ad ignorantiam. I did give you a take from the movie in which the hits on the MF are clearly distinquishable by noise and movement of the ship. 33-0.
I am saying the tie fighter adds more guns not advanced firepower.
You were saying that they were having "massive help". Maybe you want to discuss with yourself wether the TIE-fighters were helping at all, in which case they would need to have some "advanced firepower" or if they were mere decorative addition to the sceneray, in which case they didn't help much. Your choice.
More excuse making from the master. Face it you are gutless and won't allow any judges the authority to judge the debate as you know they'd sniff through your Star Wars bias. Whatever the case you were too scared to face me in an official debate you despicable coward.
Argumentum ad hominem. Final count: 34 logical fallacies and zero arguments for in a single posting.
I call that a technical knockout. Especially since your entire "argument" so far consists of this:
Star Wars weapons are weak, because they can't get through Star Wars shields easily.
Star Wars shields are weak, because their weak weapons do get through them sooner or later.
This is what we call circulus in probando or "reasoning in a circle". This is a logical fallacy (35-0). We could also do the same for Star Trek:
1)
Star Trek shields and armor are weak, because their weapons get through them instantly and often they don't even stop the first shot fired at the ships.
2)
Star Trek weapons are weak, because even though they are used against weak armor and shields, they fail to instantly destroy enemy ships.
See what I did there?
Summary: You're arguing out of ignorance. You fail to appreciate facts and deal with them. You fail to acknowledge proof presented to you for stuff deviating from your own opinion. You ignore most obvious forms of context for singular scenes. At the same time, you fail to produce even the slightest hint of evidence for your side of the argument. So, you are essentially just tossing verbal poop around and see if it sticks. This is called "trolling". So either prove up or shut up. And learn to think and debate - preferably in that precise order.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html
All that's needed